Advertise on podcast: Arbitral Insights

Antonia Birt is joined by special guests Noof Ajaji, director of communications and international cooperation at the Supreme Judicial Council of Bahrain, and Lara Salem, head of content strategy at LexisNexis, to analyze the Middle East chapter of Reed Smith’s International Arbitration Report 2025 . Together, they explore how practitioners can use the report, while also offering valuable insights into what the data reveals about success rates, grounds for challenge, timelines, cost consequences, and the practical implications for arbitration strategy in the region.  This episode is part of a global miniseries examining court challenges to arbitration awards across leading arbitral seats.

How often do challenges to arbitration awards actually succeed in Singapore, and what does the data tell us about cost and timing? Min Jian Chan, Michael Chee, and Anand Tiwari dig into the Singapore chapter of Reed Smith’s International Arbitration Report 2025. They cover success rates, the most common grounds for challenge, how long proceedings take, cost consequences, and what it all means for arbitration strategy. This episode is part of our podcast miniseries on court challenges to arbitration awards across leading arbitral seats.

In the second episode of the podcast series, “After the award: trends in arbitration challenges,” Elizabeth Farrell and Trisha Mitra-Veber unpack the key findings from the England and Wales chapter of Reed Smith’s International Arbitration Report 2025. They offer valuable insights into what the data reveals about success rates, grounds for challenge, timelines, cost consequences, and the practical implications for arbitration strategy. This episode is part of a global miniseries examining court challenges to arbitration awards across leading arbitral seats.

In this first episode of the podcast series, “After the award: trends in arbitration challenges,” Clément Fouchard and Erwan Robert discuss key findings from the France chapter of Reed Smith’s International Arbitration Report 2025. They will explore what the data reveals about success rates, grounds for challenge, timelines, cost consequences, and the practical implications for arbitration strategy. This episode is part of a global miniseries examining court challenges to arbitration awards across leading arbitral seats.

Host Gautam Bhattacharyya welcomes Jasbir Dhillon KC of Brick Court Chambers for this episode of Spotlight on… Jasbir reflects on swapping a childhood dream of becoming a footballer for a career in law, drawn not by any personal connections to the profession but by the eloquent barristers of a television courtroom drama. The conversation covers the mentors who have inspired him, his commitment to encouraging young people to pursue a career at the Bar, how he built his practice, and some of his recent significant cases. Jasbir also shares what his Sikh and Punjabi heritage means to him and how it has shaped his openness and sensitivity to other cultures in understanding disputes with an international dimension.

Host Gautam Bhattacharyya welcomes Niranjan Venkatesan KC of One Essex Court for this episode of Spotlight on… Niranjan discusses what drew him to the Commercial Bar in London and the mentors who have enriched his career along the way, reflecting on how heritage shapes who we are and what we can all learn from professional athletes.

Reed Smith lawyers Trisha Mitra-Veber and Pratheeba Vachiraveel join host and international arbitration partner, Gautam Bhattacharyya for the second of four episodes in our series celebrating SAHM 2026. Our speakers reflect on their paths to the law, the mentors who have guided them, uplifting the next generation of women in the profession, and what heritage means to them.

Host Gautam Bhattacharyya welcomes barrister Chinmayi Sharma of Three Verulam Buildings for this episode of Spotlight on… Chinmayi reflects on her path into the legal profession, the mentors and career highlights that have shaped her journey, and what South Asian heritage means to her personally. The conversation also explores the evolution of India’s legal market and its potential as an arbitration hub.

Andrew Tetley and Clément Fouchard sit down with Claudia Salomon, President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, for the insider's perspective on the new ICC Arbitration Rules. Cutting through the noise, they explore what has changed, why, and what practitioners need to know now.

Daniel Avila is joined by Gerard Meijer (Arbitration Partner at Linklaters) and Marieke Witkamp (Independent Arbitrator at Arbitra International) to discuss the key attributes that make the Netherlands a leading arbitration hub. The conversation delves into the country's arbitration-friendly judiciary, its role as host to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the English-language Netherlands Commercial Court. Highlighting its practical, business-focused approach to procedure, the discussion also explores the Netherlands' reputation as an "attachment paradise," its efficient enforcement of domestic awards, and its high confirmation rates for both domestic and international awards. Additionally, the speakers examine the Netherlands' early adoption of innovations like emergency arbitration, consolidation, and e-arbitration.

Nishant Choudhary of DFDL Myanmar joins Joyce Fong to unpack Myanmar’s arbitration regime, from the legal framework to enforcement. The discussion explores how Myanmar’s arbitration laws interface with international norms, then turns to the strategic considerations that drive the choice of seat for Myanmar-related disputes. The conversation also assesses the Myanmar courts’ approach to arbitration and enforcement, as well as observable trends in Myanmar-related arbitrations.

Host Joyce Fong and Noppadon (Ton) Treephetchara of DFDL Bangkok discuss Thailand’s arbitration framework, highlighting its Model Law basis, cost-effectiveness, and supportive judiciary. They then compare Thailand with regional alternatives, review institutional preferences (THAC and TAI), and examine local court support. The episode outlines enforcement procedures, timelines, and practical tips, and concludes with trends and THAC’s modernization efforts.

This episode is recorded in Spanish. Francisco Rodriguez and Gilberto Guerrero-Rocca explore how Latin American states have developed sophisticated, long-term strategies to defend against treaty-based claims. The episode examines the unique challenges these sovereign “repeat players” face, such as budget constraints, political pressures, and transparency issues. The discussion highlights the evolving tactics and contradictions in how these states approach international arbitration.

International arbitration partner Lucy Winnington-Ingram explores the increasingly significant role of tribunal secretaries in international arbitration. Lucy unpacks the legal and procedural challenges that can arise when tribunal secretaries move beyond their traditional administrative functions and become involved in substantive aspects of decision-making. She then offers practical guidance on how to avoid common pitfalls that could jeopardize the integrity of arbitral proceedings. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration Practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Lucy: Welcome to another episode of Arbitral Insights. I'm Lucy Winnington-Ingram. I'm a partner in Reed Smith's London office in our international arbitration team. I'm going to be running through some very high-level takeaways, discussing challenges based on the misuse of tribunal secretaries in international arbitration. So I think the starting point when thinking about this issue is recognizing that arbitration is a method of dispute resolution, which is premised on the consent of the parties. And the persons determining the dispute, i.e. the tribunal, are typically party appointed. And that's really a central tenet of international arbitration. So it's against that background that challenges to arbitral awards based on the alleged misuse of tribunal secretaries have increased. And this issue really goes to the heart of the legitimacy and enforceability of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. And it's one that's generated significant academic debate, challenges to awards and institutional reform in recent years. So the arbitrator's mandate is strictly personal, and that means that their decision-making function cannot be delegated. However, as arbitrations have become more complex and document-heavy, the increased use of tribunal secretaries, sometimes called administrative secretaries or assistants, has become widespread, and their intended role is to support the tribunal, primarily with administrative and organizational tasks. But increasingly, there's a growing concern that tribunal secretaries may overstep their intended role, moving from administrative support into substantive decision-making. And this has given rise to the so-called fourth arbitrator problem. And that's a term that was coined as early as 2002 to describe the fear that a tribunal secretary might, in effect, become an unappointed and unauthorized decision-maker in the arbitration. And very understandably, there are concerns this will damage the legitimacy of the arbitral process. So the use and potential misuse of tribunal secretaries has therefore come under increasing scrutiny, both in academic commentary and in the challenges to arbitration awards that we're seeing, and also in terms of challenges to arbitrators themselves. So one of the first known challenges to an award, based at least in part on the actions of a tribunal secretary, was a Paris Court of Appeal case from 1990. And in that case, the appellant, Honeywell, sought to set aside an ICC award, alleging that the tribunal secretary had interfered during the hearing. Now, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge, noting that the appointment of a secretary was permitted and that Honeywell had not demonstrated how the secretary would have interfered. So this case sets a sort of early precedent that mere involvement of a secretary without evidence of improper influence would not suffice to overturn an award. The next case we can look at then is Sonatrach and Statoil. And this came over two decades later in 2014. Now, in that case, the parties had expressly agreed that the tribunal secretary's role would be limited to administrative tasks and the Tribunal Secretary would have no right to participate in the decision-making process. Sonatrach later argued that the Secretary had exceeded this remit by preparing substantive notes for the Tribunal and therefore challenged the ICC award under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act. When considering this, the English High Court found no improper delegation emphasizing that the arbitrators had not abdicated their decision-making function as the Secretary's notes had only formed part of the Tribunal's deliberations. In that sense, then, the Tribunal Secretary himself had had no substantive decision-making role. A more fully articulated challenge came not long after this in 2015, and this is perhaps one of the better known challenges, and it arose in the Yukos set-aside proceedings in The Hague. So there, Russia argued that the tribunal's assistant had effectively drafted large portions of the award, and they pointed to the time records in the fee notes that showed that the tribunal secretary's hours were between 40 to 70 percent higher than those of any tribunal member. And Russia actually went so far as to submit a report from a linguistics expert, which concluded that it was extremely likely that the tribunal secretary had written significant sections of the award himself. So when it came to setting aside the awards, these were actually set aside on alternative grounds. And therefore, the relevant district court did not address Russia's complaints relating to the involvement of the tribunal secretary in the proceedings. However, in 2020, the Court of Appeal in The Hague overturned the district court decision and in doing so, it addressed Russia's arguments in relation to the Tribunal Secretary. And there, the Court of Appeal ultimately held that unless the parties had agreed otherwise, a tribunal may use a secretary to assist with drafting parts of an arbitral award as it sees fit, provided that it's the arbitrators themselves who assume responsibility for the final decision. So in effect the finding was that the mere drafting of parts of an award by an Arbitral Secretary did not automatically amount to a violation of the Tribunal's mandate. So whilst the Court of Appeal conceded that the Tribunal had failed to fully inform the parties of the nature and extent of the Tribunal Secretary's work, this did not amount to a major procedural violation. So turning then to the most recent challenge to an arbitral award on the alleged misuse of a tribunal secretary, this was brought before the Belgian Supreme Court in 2023 in Emek and WTE and the European Commission. And there, the applicants alleged that the tribunal secretary had drafted non-factual sections of a partial award. However, the Belgian Supreme Court affirmed that a secretary may draft an award completely or in part as long as the tribunal reviews and validates the work. So the Supreme Court felt that this understanding of the tribunal's mandate aligned with the ICC's guidance, which I'm going to talk about in a little bit more detail later, which explicitly allows for secretaries to prepare notes and memoranda, which could conceivably then form part of any final award. So I think one point to note is that challenges relating to the use of tribunal secretaries are not limited to challenges to arbitral awards. A number of challenges have also been brought in relation to arbitrators themselves. So, for example, in P&Q, a 2017 English High Court case, the claimant there applied for the removal of all three arbitrators appointed in an LCIA arbitration, alleging improper delegation of tasks to the Tribunal Secretary. And there, the claimant relied on time records, again, as in Yukos, and also an email from the chairman seeking the secretary's views on a procedural issue. Now, in that case, the court dismissed the application, again distinguishing between permissible support and impermissible delegation, reaffirming that the core adjudicative function must remain with the arbitrators. The judge did, however, note that whilst receiving input from a secretary does not automatically preclude independent decision-making, best practice is to avoid involving secretaries in anything that could be seen as expressing a view on the substance of the dispute. So taking all of this together then, these cases all reveal a number of key themes. First, the strictly personal nature of an arbitrator's mandate to determine the dispute. So it's clear that an arbitrator's decision-making function is strictly personal and cannot be delegated. And this is closely related to the central feature of arbitration, a party's ability to select its arbitrators. Parties choose their arbitrators for their judgment and expertise, and this is central to the legitimacy of the process. Secondly, in a number of cases, issues arise regarding the proper role of a tribunal secretary in the arbitral process. So there's a spectrum of tasks that secretaries may perform, ranging from purely administrative, so things like organizing hearings, managing documents, etc., to more substantive, conducting research, drafting procedural orders, even drafting sections of what may become the final award. Now, the further a secretary's tasks move towards analysis and decision-making, the greater the risk of challenge. The question then is what tasks and responsibilities can be safely delegated to a tribunal secretary for reasons of procedural efficiency before their role risks trespassing on that of the arbitrators. Third and finally, many challenges arise from a lack of clarity or agreement about the secretary's role. And this links back to what I was just talking about, about what tasks and responsibilities can be delegated. So early and explicit agreement on the scope of the secretary's task is crucial to avoid disputes later on.

Joyce Fong welcomes Afriyan Rachmad (Partner, Nusantara DFDL Partnership) to discuss Indonesia’s dispute resolution landscape. They cover interim court measures, enforcement timelines and procedures, seat selection strategy and practical tips for recognizing foreign awards. The episode also touches on the broader legal environment and recent trends shaping Indonesia-related arbitrations. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Joyce: Welcome to the latest episode of our Arbitral Insights podcast series. This is the third in a series of podcasts which I'm doing with DFDL, exploring arbitration across various jurisdictions in South and Southeast Asia. For this episode, I'm delighted to host Afriyan Rachmad, who will share insights from Indonesia. Afriyan is a partner at Nusantara DFDL partnership, an Indonesian law firm, and a DFDL collaborating firm. He is a projects and infrastructure specialist with particular expertise in natural resources and infrastructure projects. Afriyan’s dispute resolution practice includes litigation and arbitration. Selamat siang, Afriyan. Thank you for joining me today on this podcast.  Afriyan: Hi Joyce, thank you for inviting me to this podcast.  Joyce: To kick us off, perhaps you could give us an overview of the dispute resolution landscape in Indonesia. Tell us about the laws which form the legal framework for arbitration in Indonesia. Are they based on the UNCITRAL model law? And does the same law apply to both domestic and foreign arbitration?  Afriyan: Okay, the legal framework for arbitration in Indonesia is under law No. 30 of 1999 concerning arbitration and alternative dispute resolution. While they are not based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, although some provisions are adopting it. Yes, the arbitration law applies for domestic and foreign arbitration, although there are different sections for domestic and foreign arbitration.  Joyce: With these laws in place, would you say that arbitration is commonly used to resolve disputes in Indonesia?  Afriyan: In Indonesia, arbitration is more towards the complex disputes due to the high arbitration fee involved for conducting arbitration proceedings. The arbitration fee is based on percentage of claim value filed by the claimant. From a range of zero point six percent for claim above two trillion rupiah, approximately USD hundred twenty five million, to ten percent for claim less than one billion rupiah approximately USD 62,500. This is according to the BANI Domestic Arbitration Forum. On the other hand, court fees are in the range of USD 100 to 300 depending on the number of parties. Court litigation is however slower as it could take around three years to obtain a final and binding decision from district court to supreme court compared to arbitral award that could be rendered in approximately six months.  Joyce: So from what you've just said, Afriyan, arbitration appears to be faster but more expensive than court litigation. This is not at all surprising and is consistent with global trends. Given the significant cost difference, when do parties tend to choose to arbitrate their disputes?  Afriyan: Generally speaking, parties arbitrate more complicated disputes. For example, in construction disputes where they prefer an arbitrator who has expertise in the subject matter. Court judges just tend to have legal rather than technical knowledge. Parties also tend to choose arbitration where the dispute is between a foreign party and a local party or local company. I've seen in the past that parties tend to select the dispute resolution mechanism which is best suited for their dispute. regardless of the dispute resolution clause in their contract. I have seen cases where parties agree to arbitrate the dispute only after the dispute arises. I have also seen cases where parties agree to court litigation even though the contract has an arbitration clause. This tends to be accommodate parties' circumstances. For example, if one party causes an arbitration fee, Although the arbitration fee will be borne equally by both claimant and defendant, however, in practice, the claimant shall pay full in advance before the arbitration proceeding could be started. This is particularly for cases handled by BANI.  Joyce: So picking up on a point which you've just raised, Afryan, foreign parties often prefer arbitration of a litigation when contracting with a local party. There tends to be concerns with litigating on the local party's home turf, where the foreign party may be unfamiliar with the local court procedure and may also perceive the local party to have an upper hand. I think this is especially the case if the local party is well connected or linked to the government. Based on your experience, when parties agree to arbitrate, do parties tend to choose Indonesian or foreign arbitral seats?  Afriyan: Well, this perception I think can be used by parties. But if the balance of power is equal during the contract negotiation, parties tend to choose international arbitration. for example, seated in Singapore or Paris with SIAC or ICC administrating. The main reason probably international arbitration proceeding is more comfortable for foreign parties compared to domestic arbitration institution. If the local Indonesian party is likely to be the defaulting party under the contract, an Indonesian seat with BANI administrating is popular. Jakarta is often selected as the seat, unless there is another seat which has closer connection to the dispute. For example, the parties may choose Bali or Kalimantan as a seat where the dispute relates to a construction project there. There is a famous case between PT Pertamina and PT Lirik Petroleum, in which the case was handled by BANI. This case was brought appealed to Supreme Court when was requested for enforcement. And Supreme Court at that time made consideration that the case is deemed as foreign arbitral award due to the race element of foreign in the contract, although the parties are Indonesian and it was handled by BANI, particularly BANI Mampang. In end of 2024, a lecturer filed a case to concessional court to review definition of foreign arbitral award under the arbitration law and constitutional court give a decision that a case considered as foreign arbitration proceeding or domestic arbitration proceeding based on territorial principle in which if the case was handled by foreign arbitration institution and seated not within the Indonesian territory then it will be considered as foreign arbitration proceeding. I will also add that there are two different institutions called BANI in Indonesia. It was started in 2016 and for around six years there are duality in BANI, which is BANI Mampang and BANI Sovereign. Both parties were arguing in civil court, state administrative court, and commercial court for trademark violation. In the recent years, BANI Mampang tends to be more popular than the BANI Sovereign, since currently we cannot find BANI Sovereign website or legal domicile address of this BANI Sovereign. Due to this invariability and taking consideration of the amount of the case that is being handled, we will suggest for any dispute that would like to choose local arbitration or domestic arbitration institution to choose BANI Mampang.  Joyce: Thank you for the helpful insight on the two BANIs. It's certainly important to nominate the right BANI if parties intend to select BANIs as an arbitral institution. Otherwise, there is being satellite litigation over which BANI was the parties intended. I also find it quite interesting what you said about all arbitrations in Indonesia being deemed to be domestic, regardless of whether there's a foreign element and which institution administers the arbitration. On that note, is ad hoc arbitration common in Indonesia?  Afriyan: Although ad hoc arbitration is permitted in Indonesia, but it is not common to the best of my experience, Joyce.  Joyce: Okay, okay. Just going back then to the choice of Indonesia as a seat, what are the advantages to parties for seating and arbitration in Indonesia?  Afriyan: According to the arbitration law, it is easier to enforce a domestic award in Indonesia due to the arbitral award in Bahasa Indonesia. The arbitral award can go directly to the local district court to register the award for enforcement. Note that this must be done within 30 days from the date of the award. If it is missed, then the domestic arbitral award could not be requested for enforcement to the district court. The winning party could wait until the counterparty voluntarily do the domestic arbitral award or to file a new case at the district court and the domestic arbitral award will be the primary evidence. For foreign awards, the arbitral award must first go to the Central Jakarta District Court to request for the issuance of execution of the award. Before bringing that word to the local district court who has jurisdiction to conduct execution over the losing party. Note that arbitration law requires few documents to be filed together with the original arbitral award issued by the foreign arbitration institution. There is, however, no time limit for filing this enforcement of foreign arbitral award to the Central Jakarta District Court compared to the domestic arbitral award that I have mentioned previously.  Joyce: My takeaway from what you've just said, Afriyan, is that domestic awards, in other words, awards which are issued in Indonesia-centered arbi